It had to do with the Audi 2015 TT’s virtual cockpit, a beautiful piece of work:

Now, can one assume that the 2016 Audi TT's virtual cockpit is a newer iteration of the QNX-powered Audi virtual cockpit of the 2015 Audi TT?

I have searched everywhere and believe one can reasonably assume so. Too bad, that information isn't readily available through QNX, Audi, etc. Let's hope things improve in terms of QNX's visibility, in the future...

Now, I hope my assumption is right... if not, my apologies to all!

Sorry for the long, slightly OT, post.

I think you are correct that QNX is underneath but where QNX ends and Audi begins is a mystery. Rightware created the dash UI but QNX could have subcontracted them as they also did the Maserati dash for QNX demo. The cockpit hardware is from Bosch.

QNX needs to get on the branding wagon to make it easier for the consumer public.

"Microsoft Corp. is outshining Apple Inc. in at least one area: bond sales.

The software giant on Monday completed the largest U.S. corporate-bond sale this year, selling $10.75 billion in debt with maturities of five to 40 years. The sale surpasses a pair of megabonds issued last week, an $8 billion sale by drug maker Merck & Co. and a $6.5 billion deal from electronics titan Apple.

Investors on Monday lined up to purchase debt from the Redmond, Wash., company, prompting Microsoft to boost the size of the sale from $7 billion, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD. The company is one of the few U.S. firms with a pristine triple-A credit rating, reflecting strong profitability and a light debt load.

Investors expect big companies like Microsoft, Apple and Merck to tap the bond market in size this year, even though many dont immediately appear to need the cash. Companies are taking advantage of attractive borrowing costs following a sharp decline in some developed economy government-bond yields, while investors are seeking out securities that offer higher yields than ultrasafe U.S. debt.

Many of the largest bond issuers, including Apple and Microsoft, have large cash reserves that were earned overseas and would be subject to U.S. taxes if repatriated. Company executives are finding it more cost-effective to borrow money in the U.S. bond markets at the low rates currently available than bringing the money home.

Apple could sell its first bond denominated in Swiss francs on Tuesday. The company last year sold 2.8 billion ($3.16 billion) of debt in euros. Yields on developed-country government debt in Europe, where the European Central Bank recently announced a bond-buying stimulus program in response to sluggish economic growth and falling inflation, are even lower than in the U.S.

Even in the often-staid bond market, Apple can still garner excitement among investors. The company is the largest in the world by stock-market value and recently reported a record $18 billion profit for the latest quarter, an increase of 38%. Its $17 billion bond sale in April 2013 was the largest on record at the time, before it was surpassed that year by $49 billion from Verizon Communications Inc.

Microsoft is coming off a tougher quarter in the latest period. Sales of software to corporations, including Windows, Office and computer-server products, came in below analyst expectations. Net income fell compared with the same period last year.

Zachary Chavis, a portfolio manager at Sage Advisory Services, which oversees $11 billion, sat out Microsofts bond sale on Monday but said his firm planned to buy some of the new bonds in the coming days. The fact is theres not a lot of triple-A paper out there, he said.

Microsofts bond sale Monday is its first since 2013, according to data provider Dealogic. The company said it would use proceeds from the sale for general corporate purposes, which could include stock buybacks, capital expenditures and repaying existing debt. Moodys Investors Service noted the company plans to complete its remaining $31 billion share buyback program by the end of December 2016.

Microsoft shopped its bond at lower relative yields than Apples sale last week. On Monday, Microsoft offered a 10-year bond to yield 0.75 percentage point more than benchmark Treasurys. The 10-year Microsoft bond priced at a yield of 2.724%.

Apple, which is rated one notch below Microsoft at double-A-plus, last week sold 10-year bonds to yield 0.85 percentage point more than Treasurys.

The 10-year U.S. Treasury note on Monday closed at a yield of around 1.98%, up from 1.64% it hit last month but down from 3% toward the end of 2013. Bond prices rise when yields fall and vice versa."

Gary Davis, Intel Securitys chief consumer security evangelist, speaks to Risk & Compliance Journal about company compliance in the era of the Internet of Things and wearable technology, and how mobile remains the weakest link in a companys cyberdefense.

What role does compliance play in a companys cyberdefense strategy?

Mr. Davis: Compliance continues to be an important facet for every company as it looks to respond to regulatory requirements and being able to comply with corporate policies. But how do you do that in a world growing increasingly more complex? Look at wearables; four, five years ago it was all about BYOD but now people are bringing Google Glass and all other types of wearables to work. This could affect a companys compliance posture and they need to understand how so they can respond in kind.

Some companies are doing well, others are lagging a bit. The bigger the company, the less nimble it is and more apt it is to struggle with wearables and the Internet of Things in terms of its compliance framework. I wish I could say either a grade of A or B but its not quite that simple. It depends on the specific industry, the specific company, the specific type of compliance they have to participate in.

Is there a particular industry that is succeeding in this area?

Mr. Davis: Energy is a leader in the connected devices space and is likely best suited to embrace Internet of Things devices by nature of its connected critical infrastructure, smart meters, etc. Another industry is health carego into any hospital environment and there are all of these devices and all of them are interconnected. Health care is really having to embrace it and take on this notion of the Internet of Things.

How will wearable devices affect compliance?

Mr. Davis: I think the question that needs to be asked is what is the ability of those devices to sense what is going on in an environment to set off a compliance trigger. Things with cameras are more prone to be cast in a compliance nature as opposed to somebody wearing a Fit Band or a Fitbit.

How can companies protect these devices?

Mr. Davis: The weakest link today is mobile and all the devices connecting to that mobile device. Consumers and businesses are not treating those with the same sort of optics they do with PCs. If you bring a PC into a corporate environment everyone knows how to put it behind a firewall and to apply controls. They arent applying that same focus to mobile devices and wearablesthat is the attack surface that malicious people are going to target, thats where they can get scale to do something.

What role should regulators play in educating on this?

Mr. Davis: I would prefer industry lead, that will have the best chance of success instead of having government try and instead overregulate this space. The Federal Trade Commission recently came out with a 71-page report that says weve got to get ahead of all of these Internet of Things and devices, making sure we are putting the proper safeguards in place so we dont give hackers another attack surface. Now is the time to do this rather than waiting until these are deployed in mass.

Boards are just starting to get educated about cybersecurity. Are they ready for the Internet of Things and wearables?

Mr. Davis: I think we saw an inflection point last year. When you look at the most recent cycle of breaches, I think they got board-level attention. It started with Target, when the CEO ultimately was firedthat got to the board. What were seeing now is more boards are looking at security as a strategic differentiator. It takes a while for boards to make decisions, have them cascade down and implement new security technologies. We saw the start of this last year and we will see more of its effect this year and next as more companies build more layered security in as they introduce more devices into their environments.

What about the security of payments systems?

Mr. Davis: One place people should watch this year and next is the whole notion of multifactor authentication. Name a breachevery single time the passwords never change. We are using a technologythe passwordthats been around since the `60s, and despite our best efforts we havent been able to convey the notion that its important to use complex passwords, different passwords. I think were going to see a shift from trying to get consumers to think about this more sensibly to what do we have to authenticate that individual so we dont have to use passwords any more.

Every device has a microphone, a camera, Bluetooth. If I have my fitness band paired to my phone, and it talks to my computer, that would provide a high degree of trust that I am who I say I am without putting in passwords. I see a massive shiftfrom the notion of trying to get people to use passwords correctly to dont even worry about it any more. If you do these simple things, interact with the device in a natural way and allow it to authenticate to the device and through to social media and whatever else you do, I think it will fundamentally reshape how consumers and businesses think about security going forward.

Mr. Davis: Payment methods have to evolve. Last year was a brutal year for retailers. I think going to a chip-and-signature system is a step in the right direction but falls short of what we should be doing, which is full chip-and-pin like in Europe, since that doesnt transfer over the credit card number. Apple Pay and Google Wallet are also going to be encouraging ways to have new payment methods. This is going to be a spot where we have to drive change.

The day when the BlackBerry (TSX:BB) brand is not synonymous with a smart phone may not be imminent, but some of the Waterloo-based device maker’s recent actions suggest it may one day be a reality.

The most recent evidence came today when the company appointed a new Chief Security Officer with deep expertise in the Internet of Things.

BlackBerry’s new man is David Kleidermacher, a mobile security and Internet of Things expert, and author of the book ““Embedded Systems Security: Practical Methods for Safe and Secure Software and Systems Development”.

“David is an outstanding addition to our best-in-class security team, and he will help extend BlackBerry’s gold standard of security as we work with customers to meet new cybersecurity challenges,” said CEO John Chen. “In particular, David’s knowledge of securing the Internet of Things and embedded systems will be invaluable as we execute on our strategy and continue to expand our management of the world’s mobile endpoints.”

Last May, BlackBerry unveiled Project Ion, a way for the company to extend its famous encryption into Internet-enabled devices. The initiative may strike a chord today in particular after Samsung yesterday warned that customers should be wary of talking in front of its voice enabled TVs for fear that conversations could be recorded and transmitted to third parties. Yikes.

So is BlackBerry the company to save us from a dystopian future of snooping appliances? Chen thinks the company’s expertise might just be in demand in a time when your refrigerator has an IP address.

“Billions of connections, generating trillions of transactions and exabytes of data daily, will require platforms that can operate securely on a global scale. No other company is in a better position than BlackBerry to provide the technological building blocks, applications and services needed to enhance productivity, improve real-time decision making and deliver on the vision of the Internet of Things,” he said at Project Ion’s launch.

One review of Kleidermacher’s book (co-written with his brother) suggests that BlackBerry has exactly the right man for the job.

“An important contribution to the understanding of the security of embedded systems,” said Dr. Joerg Borchert, Vice President, Chip Card & Security, Infineon Technologies North America Corp.; President and Chairman, Trusted Computing Group. “The Kleidermachers are experts in their field. As the Internet of things becomes reality, this book helps business and technology management as well as engineers understand the importance of “security from scratch.” This book, with its examples and key points, can help bring more secure, robust systems to the market.”

Time to go: my toaster needs to download a security patch if I’m going to have breakfast today.

David Kleidermacher is Chief Technology Officer at Green Hills Software where he is responsible for technology strategy, platform planning, and solutions design. Kleidermacher is a leading authority in systems software and security, including secure operating systems and virtualization technology. Kleidermacher is one of the original authors of INTEGRITY, the first and only operating system technology certified to EAL 6+ High Robustness, the highest Common Criteria security level ever achieved for a software product. Kleidermacher earned his bachelor of science in computer science from Cornell University and has been the world's most prolific writer and speaker on embedded systems security over the past decade. He has been with Green Hills Software since 1991.

Mike Kleidermacher is a retired electrical engineer whose 45 year career was dedicated to the design, implementation, and strategic evolution of secure embedded communications devices. Mike held various positions, including program manager, technical director, and chief engineer, within GE Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, and L-3 Communications and specialized in hardware and systems engineering for Type-1 NSA certified communications systems. With his countless contributions to innovative products such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment, Ricebird crypto chip, Talon network encryptor, and Guardian secure smartphone, Mike is a legend in the United States INFOSEC/COMSEC communities. Mike holds a Top Secret / SCI U.S. government clearance and numerous patents related to the design and implementation of embedded security hardware. Mike received his master of science in electrical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania.

The concept for the book came about a year and a half ago. David came to me because both of our backgrounds (Mike – Hardware Cryptography, David – Software Cryptography) were similar and we thought it would be nice to capitalize on over 60 years of collective knowledge and experience.

It took us almost a year to write the book and we were under the constraints of a tight schedule deemed by the publisher. We had to provide a 36-page detailed index along with a description of why we felt this book/ concept is better than what is out there already. The best way to describe why our book was written can be obtained from our Book forward:

“The reader will gain a solid understanding of the critical systems software and hardware issues that must be considered when designing secure embedded systems. Most embedded systems developers do not write their own operating systems and network protocols, nor do they design their own microprocessors. Therefore, a proficient knowledge in the security-relevant aspects of these platform components is critical to making good embedded design choices, particularly with respect to meeting security objectives given a particular operating environment.”

The book went on the market in late 2012 and unlike a lot of popular authors; we did not receive any funding up front. Since its publishing, we’ve received high accolades from our peers (some from our respective companies) as well as our first commission check based upon a royalty fee. We’ve sold well over 1000 copies.

Embedded Systems Security

This wasn’t a project for the money – this was a labor of love to collaborate with my son and develop a closer relationship. This led to the development of several security blogs as well as the exchange ideas related to important security issues in the world. We loved doing this project together and continue to enjoy exchanging ideas related to security.

Looks like they are leaving the party after so many years of putting up with the bums. We need to get that number under 50 MM and then we will stop seeing so much volatility. Have we ever gone so long without news? Nothing on revenue based topics from BB or Chen. We are trading just under the 3-ema waiting for a driver, it closed at $ 9.93/shr and we are so close to clearing it. Cheers and thanks.

Looks like they are leaving the party after so many years of putting up with the bums. We need to get that number under 50 MM and then we will stop seeing so much volatility. Have we ever gone so long without news? Nothing on revenue based topics from BB or Chen. We are trading just under the 3-ema waiting for a driver, it closed at $ 9.93/shr and we are so close to clearing it. Cheers and thanks.

I sure hope so! Although we can't say we haven't seen this kind of drop before.

Looking forward to see if we have found the bottom as we haven't reached the 200MA or the channel bottom just yet. Would be nice not to fall that far and have our next leg up from here. On the other hand, a bounce from there would also be a welcome confirmation of the channel you presented last week.

Nice.
I would really like the Passport (Passport 2?) to have buttons for end/send and an alt button. There is just too much contrast between it and the others. I feel we are too fragmented with the devices, but I realize that BlackBerry is probably trying to find a balance (no pun int) or see where the sweet spot is.
At least currently, the Classic seems to be the best if all world's, but I won't complain having the luxury of owning a Z30 and a Passport.

Say, I wonder if this no news marathon is going to bring something huge? Perhaps I should add, because I doubt we will dip much lower, and the upside would be fantastic.

Nice.
I would really like the Passport (Passport 2?) to have buttons for end/send and an alt button. There is just too much contrast between it and the others. I feel we are too fragmented with the devices, but I realize that BlackBerry is probably trying to find a balance (no pun int) or see where the sweet spot is.

I agree. Or at least implement soft buttons for the end/send button that appear on screen (including the lock screen). My phone locks on me all the time while I'm on it. I just wanna end the call with as few actions as possible. I don't like having to swipe up to wake the screen, enter my password, tap the phone active frame, and then hit hang up.

Auto makers are cramming cars with wireless technology, but they have failed to adequately protect those features against the real possibility that hackers could take control of vehicles or steal personal data, according to an analysis of information that manufacturers provided to a senator.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., asked auto makers a series of questions about the technologies and any safeguards against hackers built into their vehicles. He also asked about how the information that vehicle computers gather and often transmit wirelessly is protected.

Markey posed his questions after researchers showed how hackers can get into the controls of some popular cars and SUVs, causing them suddenly to accelerate, turn, sound the horn, turn headlights off or on and modify speedometer and gas-gauge readings.

The responses from 16 manufacturers “reveal there is a clear lack of appropriate security measures to protect drivers against hackers who may be able to take control of a vehicle or against those who may wish to collect and use personal driver information,” a report by Markey’s staff concludes.

Today’s cars and light trucks typically contain more than 50 electronic control units — effectively small computers — that are part of a network in the car. At the same time, nearly all new cars on the market today include at least some wireless entry points to these computers, such as tire pressure monitoring systems, Bluetooth, Internet access, keyless entry, remote start, navigation systems, WiFi, anti-theft systems and cellular-telematics, the report said. Only three automakers said they still have some models without wireless entry, but those models are a small and declining share of their fleets.

“Drivers have come to rely on these new technologies, but unfortunately the automakers haven’t done their part to protect us from cyberattacks or privacy invasions,” Markey said in a statement.

Among the report’s findings:

— Most manufacturers said they were unaware of or unable to report on past hacking incidents. Three automakers declined to answer the question. One auto maker described an app designed by an outside company and released for Android devices that could access a vehicle’s computer network through the Bluetooth connection. A security analysis didn’t indicate any ability to introduce malicious code or steal data, but the auto maker had the app removed from the Google Play store as a precautionary measure.

— Each manufacturer is handling the introduction of new technology in very different ways, and for the most part these actions are insufficient to ensure security. Hackers can get around most security protections cited by manufacturers, according to the security experts Markey consulted.

— Only one manufacturer appeared able to detect a hacking attempt while it was happening and only two described credible means of responding to such intrusions in real time. Information from most auto makers indicated they wouldn’t know about a hacking attempt unless data from the vehicle’s computers was downloaded by a dealer or at a service centre.

Most new cars are also capable of collecting large amounts of data on a vehicle’s driving history through an array of pre-installed technologies, including navigation systems, telematics, infotainment, emergency assistance systems and remote disabling devices that allow car dealers to track and disable vehicles whose drivers don’t keep up with their payments or that are reported stolen, the report said.

Half the manufacturers said they wirelessly transfer information on driving history from vehicles to another location, often using third-party companies, and most don’t describe “an effective means to secure the data,” the report said.

Manufacturers are also using personal vehicle data in various and often vague ways to “improve the customer experience,” the report said. Policies on how long they store drivers’ information vary considerably. Customers often are not made aware explicitly of the data collection and, when they are, they frequently cannot opt out without disabling valuable features like navigation.

Last November, 19 auto makers accounting for most of the passenger cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. agreed on a set of principles to protect motorists’ privacy. The voluntary agreement was aimed in part at heading off possible legislation. Markey has said voluntary efforts don’t go far enough.

The auto industry is also in the early stages of establishing a voluntary information sharing and analysis centre or other comparable program about existing or potential cyber-related threats. “But even as we explore ways to advance this type of industrywide effort, our members already are each taking on their own aggressive efforts to ensure that we are advancing safety,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said in a statement.

The Society of Automotive Engineers also has established a security committee that is evaluating the vulnerability of cars to hacking and is drafting “standards and best practices to help ensure electronic control system safety,” the alliance said.

The Association of Global Automakers, another trade association, said the responses provided to Markey are many months old and don’t reflect extensive discussions between the industry and federal technology experts aimed at improving the industry’s understanding of cyber threats.

Since things are so quiet on the BBRY front, we can talk about the accolades of AAPL and its $710B market cap like every media outlet seems to love to do. Everything I hear and read these days portrays AAPL as bulletproof. In my opinion, their products are just 'meh', yet everyone is gaga over them. Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see them continuing up forever. I'm not sure whats more frustrating, the fact that BBRY's share price is stuck at is 200-DMA or that my short bet on AAPL is in the red. Even though AAPL and BBRY are not even playing in the same game (they are in entirely different sports), I can't help but pair my long BBRY bet with a fine side of AAPL short. Anyhow, I'm going to just sit here and stick to my long term thesis and hopefully eventually I can say I was right. I can't believe how long I have been saying that line and I wonder how much longer I / we'll have to say it. With the recent drop in BBRY short numbers, I have a good feeling that time is coming soon. We shall see. In the end, the truth shall prevail. Sounds dramatic, but it applies. Have a great day, gang!

Agree 100%.
In related news I downloaded TicketMaster app onto my Classic to buy some tickets to a show yesterday. I also use a security app called Privacy App...it notifies me of suspicious permissions asked from any app on my device. Well it freaked out at TM permission asks...they wanted access to absolutely everything...Privacy App alerted and allowed me to modify TM access permissions all from an easy UI.

Info is the new money...why they all need access to everything is ridiculous and greedy...at best.